Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy. we're not going to put ourselves in a position where, in order to pay for the spending we have already incurred, where the two options are we were way to either profoundly hurt the economy, hurt seniors, hurt kids trying to go to college or we will blow up the economy. we will not do that. not whatever congress does. they will have to send me something that is sensible. we should not be doing this in a one-three month time when. why should we do that? where the united states of america. we cannot manage our affairs in such a way that we pay our bills and provide certainty in terms of how we pay our bills? look. i do not think anyone would consider my position on reasonable. major, i am happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits. i'm not going to have a monthly or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills. that in and of itself does severe damage. even the threat of default hurts our economy. it hurts our economy as we speak. if we want t
similar things and have also had some success in creating more monetary policy support for the economy. >> you had mentioned that there has been evidence that the longer-term interest rates have come down to the initial round. concern is that the unemployment rate remains very high and activity would try to bring that down and one would hope to see additional movements from the most recent round. are you suggesting that one would need to be patient? needs a little bit more about how you would assess how this is having the kind of effect that you would anticipate? >> well, we will be doing that on a regular basis. we will be looking at the impact on financial markets and we will see some effect there. we will look to see whether or not the labor market situation. we first started talking about a .1% on employment, there has been some movement. there was nearly 40% of the unemployed having been out of work for six months or more. that is a situation where there are too many people i can give you specific criteria except to say that we will be assessing the impact of our actions a financi
spend on everything from education to public safety less as a share of the economy that has been true for a generation. that is not a recipe for growth. we have to do more to stabilize the finances over the medium and long-term, and also spur more growth in the short term. i have said i am hoping to making modest adjustments to programs like medicare to protect them for future generations. i also said we need more revenue for tax reform by closing loopholes for the wealthiest americans. if we combine a balanced package of savings from spending on health care and revenues from closing loopholes, we consult the deficit issue without sacrificing our investments in things like education that are going to help us grow. it turns out the american people agree with me. they listened to an entire year's debate over this issue, and they made a clear decision about the approach they prefer. they do not think it is fair to ask a senior to pay more for his or her health care or a scientist to shut down like that saving research so that a multi millionaire investor can take less in tax rates then a
the way the move freight that fuels our economy. map 21 streamlines and consolidates programs and map 21 helps to shorten project delivery a priority for president obama and congress. when we deliver projects faster, when we deliver their benefits faster. like enhancing safety, less congestion and a cleaner environment. the project delivery improvement included in map 21 based on an innovative -- innovation initiative known as everyday counts. they took it from you, victor. you've done a great job with every day that counts. let's hear it for decter menendez and what he has done and what his team has done. thank you, victor. [applause] the concept behind everyday counts is the same as this year's thp. better, faster and smarter. finally map 21 helps us keep our transportation system safe. this law gives the department for the first time oversight over transit safety. again, a big thanks goes to peter rogoff. in the train crash your and 10, peter and i decided that we would commit ourselves to getting the department of transportation into the transit safety business and thanks to all of h
on that investment? are you benefiting from that? is there enough tax being generated in the economy to offset that and when a disaster occurs are you on the hook for all the infrastructure and everything else that may be required to rebuild that community? and isha return on that exposure greater than what your payoff would he? now the taxpayer, the answer unfortunately is too often now. we have subsidized risk to a point where as long as no extreme event occurs, it seems okay. but when the extreme event occurs you are now exposed to much greater costs without necessarily generating revenue or other societal benefits offsetting that risk. now, through the 70s and 80s and early '90s, when a lot of growth was taking place in growing coastal areas and other areas very few storms were occurring. the frequency was down so the illusion was i a pitcher for 3030 years and this never happened. the problem with climate and weather is 30-year cycles are like an eyelash in understanding how these systems work. notts talking about any other issues and now we find ourselves in this increased activity and y
the economy collapse. and in classic washington fashion, this is the case with the schoolhouse is on fire and rather than focusing on putting the fire out, everyone in washington runs out to use as much water. the budget deficit is the economy right now. that's the to 50 minute like that but that's the truth. i think it would be great if an organization with strength and integrity of a or b. would stand up and make the point because we're having an entire budget that is basically premised on something that is not true. >> i agree with you. we do have underlying pieces of our economy that need to get fixed. but massive change in spending and we've already cut a trillion dollars over all in spending. we've cut medicare as part of the political their act. we have to be really careful and just solving these problems by cutting spending. .. >> we do it in a way that supports families and the population that we have. >> let me just add to that. i agree with you, but unfortunately, most of the people on social security will be on fixed budgets. and so there's still a danger having out-of-pocket
that healthy ecosystems also can mean healthy economies. from louisiana, what we have taken -- what we believe is a very good first effort the addressing the vulnerabilities that exist in reducing that risk is with the state's matter of fact plan which is a long- term plan to reduce the economic significance and reduce the risk across the coast. we believe we can achieve protection for all coastal communities. it is that resource that is important. the states provide and the gulf provides to the nation, it if it is going to be afforded through the nation. we believe with this plan we can have sustainable healthy ecosystems but also healthy communities. there's an essence of -- there is a form of social engineering because if you can't ensure the communities, the supermarket, the schools, the things that the communities depend on, the communities will not survive. we want to make sure we will develop a healthy system but also healthy communities that can provide those resources. we have come a long way, it is not perfect but we have a plan to achieve this sustainability and protecting the commu
is greater than our nation's economy exceeding our g.d.p. and we have on the floor floor toda legislation that calls upon our children and grandchildren even greater burdens of debt. it's time to end the credit card economics. we simply cannot afford to spend money that we are borrowing from countries like china on-line items we don't need and constitution isn't authorized to spend. my amendment strips one line item out of this bill. this is really low-hanging fruit. the sandy relief effort was increased by $1 million to boost the legal services corporation, massacre aiding as disaster relief and i thought we had a ban on earmarks in this congress. why is a bailout for new york lawyers emergency hurricane relief, even if you believe this is a legitimate government program which i don't, by the way, how can you argue that spending on lawyers is a legitimate emergency spending? let me say again, for $-- we are $16 trillion in debt, we are $16 trillion in debt, america. we simply cannot afford to continue like this. we cannot keep spending on money we don't have on things we can't afford and
or to radically, giving too much money into many loans purses to few. banks are important part of the economy and the finance new job growth and the ability of people to buy a home, which is the largest single investment that they will make. we really need for them to be there to help the consumers and businesses finance their operations. the balancing act is not being too strict so that they will draw in and not land but not being too lax. that is a fine line. we shall we shallthe cfpb has achieve that with these rules. financial institutions will complain about any regulation because they did not want to be subject to kinds of rules that instruct them in how to do their business. when you read the complaints from the financial industry, i would say we have to take some of those with a grain of salt. host: gretchen morgenson is the "the new york times" assistant business and financial editor. she was co-author of "reckless endangerment.' guest: who basically were the interco parties in creating the crisis decades later. host: don is next from clifton, virginia. caller: a good time to segue t
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9